Chisholm v Pittwater Council & Anor [2001] NSWCA 104

Chisholm v Pittwater Council & Anor [2001] NSWCA 104

The appeal failed because the evidence demonstrated that the Council was informed of and considered the June 1999 amendment to clause 32 of the LEP before approving the development application, and the Development Unit Report with its attachments and appendages, including Attachment 1 and extracts from the Tanner Report, constituted a conservation plan within clause 32(5) and assessed the impact of the proposal as required by clause 32(4). The Council therefore complied with the LEP, and the remaining grounds did not establish invalidity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Class 4 Proceedings Challenging Development Consent / Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'local Environmental Plan' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'conservation Plan' 'relevant Considerations' 'procedural Fairness' 'manifest Unreasonableness']
['building Control and Town Planning' 'planning and Environment' 'heritage Conservation'] ['development Consent' 'local Environmental Plan' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'conservation Plan' 'relevant Considerations' 'procedural Fairness' 'manifest Unreasonableness']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Class 4 Proceedings Challenging Development Consent / Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Pittwater Council failed to comply with clause 32 of the Pittwater Local Environmental Plan when approving the development application.' 'Whether the Council approved the development application without awareness of the June 1999 amendment to clause 32.' 'Whether there was a conservation plan before the Council satisfying clause 32(4) and clause 32(5).' 'Whether the Council failed to take relevant matters into account, took irrelevant matters into account, denied procedural fairness, or acted manifestly unreasonably.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the evidence demonstrated that the Council was informed of and considered the June 1999 amendment to clause 32 of the LEP before approving the development application, and the Development Unit Report with its attachments and appendages, including Attachment 1 and extracts from the Tanner Report, constituted a conservation plan within clause 32(5) and assessed the impact of the proposal as required by clause 32(4). The Council therefore complied with the LEP, and the remaining grounds did not establish invalidity.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']